Fayobserver reports:
Timothy Hennis’ trial record is now in the hands of Maj. Gen. Rodney Anderson, Fort Bragg’s acting commanding general, a Fort Bragg spokeswoman said Friday.
Hennis’ attempt at a new court-martial was denied late last month by a military judge, meaning his case now moves to Fort Bragg’s commanding general for review.
Fayobserver observes:
A military judge has denied Timothy Hennis’ request for a new trial.
NorthestNavigator reports:
Navy Times reports:
The Navy says it’s discharging 16 Sailors assigned to the amphibious ship Bataan for using or dealing the banned synthetic drug Spice.
Honolulu Star Advertiser reports:
Evan Schaeffer at illinoistrialpractice.com has this post:
In the new book, Your Witness: Lessons on Cross-Examination, there is a chapter titled "Cross-Examining the Liar" by Chicago lawyer Dan Webb.
Webb, who has cross-examined scores of liars during his long career, begins the chapter by describing the two requirements that must be present before you even begin to think about trying to take on a liar at trial–
Thanks to federalevidencereview.com here is an interesting case about preserving the issue for appeal. In this case there was a pretrial motion and the judge denied the defense its requested relief.
The government claimed the plain error standard would apply, as at trial the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed that plain error applied to the issue. The circuit noted that while the matter did not develop at trial, it had been the subject of a motion in limine by the defendant. The trial court rejected the motion in limine. The circuit noted a standard that applied in the circuit to whether a party’s actions were sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. In doing so, the court noted FRE 103(a), which relieves a party from having to renew an object at trial if the court had previously made "a definitive ruling on the objection." FRE 103(a).
Navy Times reports:
The command master chief of the Japan-based destroyer Stethem has been fired after being arrested in connection with a drunken-driving incident, according to a 7th Fleet spokesman.
The relief of Command Master Chief (SW/AW) Kelvin Coleman on Jan. 22 marks the second firing of a command’s top enlisted sailor so far this year. Both firings were related to drunken driving.
Three of which have discussion.
United States v. Hohman. It’s a Marine case along the lines of Hutchins, et. al.
The Government alleges the military judge erred in abating the court-martial proceedings until the appellee’s previously detailed military defense counsel is returned to the defense team. Subsequent to
the Government’s filing of the interlocutory appeal, the appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On 1 December 2010, we heard oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and the interlocutory appeal. After considering the record of trial and the parties’ pleadings, we deny the appellee’s motion to dismiss and conclude that good cause exists to sever the attorney-client relationship. The Government’s appeal is granted.
Navy Times has a little more information on the USNA spice “case.”
The Navy expelled the seven mids three months after investigators seized a notebook page that suggests one or more midshipmen had hatched the layout for a spice ring.
The notebook page seized by Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents appears to detail a makeshift business plan for the alleged spice ring, complete with four investors, 18 possible consumers and plans for a party house.
The Colorado Springs Gazette reports:
A Fort Carson soldier was sentenced Sunday to 10 years in prison for killing two of his friends while driving drunk last year.
Fayobserver.com reports:
United States v. Pope.
We granted review of four issues in this case:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING A GREEN DETOXIFICATION DRINK UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF SIMILAR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE FAILED TO GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION THAT AN EXHIBIT WAS BEING ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
WHETHER IT WAS PLAIN ERROR FOR THE MILITARY JUDGE TO ALLOW TRIAL COUNSEL TO ELICIT TESTIMONY ON APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO ALLOW TRIAL COUNSEL TO COMMENT ON THIS DURING HIS FINDINGS ARGUMENT.
WHETHER THE CONTESTED FINDINGS AND SENTENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE UNDER THE CUMULATIVE ERROR DOCTRINE.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
